Infants' understanding of model objects and modeled actions should not be assumed

Developmental Science

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 317-318

  Johnson, Kathy E ^a   Younger, Barbara A ^a   Furrer, Stephanie D ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22144498871     PISSN: 1363755X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00418.x     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Booth, A.E., & Waxman, S. (2002). Object names and object functions serve as cues to categories for infants. Developmental Psychology, 38, 948-957.
2. Booth, A.E., & Waxman, S. (2003). Mapping words to the world in infancy: infants' expectations for count nouns and adjectives. Journal of Cognition and Development, 4, 357-381.
3. DeLoache, J.S., Uttal, D.H., & Rosengren, K.S. (2004). Scale errors offer evidence for a perception-action dissociation early in life. Science, 304, 1027-1029.
4. Dirks, J., & Gibson, E. (1977). Infants' perception of similarity between live people and their photographs. Child Development, 48, 124-130.
5. Mandler, J.M. (2005). A confusion between understanding and understanding symbols. Developmental Science, 8 (4), 315-316.
6. Meltzoff, A.N. (1988). Imitation of televised models by infants. Child Development, 59, 1221-1229.
7. Mervis, C.B., Mervis, C.A., Johnson, K.E., & Bertrand, J.P. (1992). Studying early lexical development: the value of the diary method. In C. Rovee-Collier & L. Lipsitt (Eds.), Advances in Infancy Research (Vol. 7, pp. 291-378). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8. Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulation of interactions between two-month-olds and their mothers. In T. Fields & N. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infancy (pp. 177-197). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
9. Naigles, L.G., & Gelman, S.A. (1995). Overextensions in comprehension and production revisited: preferential-looking in a study of dog, cat, and cow. Journal of Child Language, 22, 19-46.
10. Rakoczy, H., Tomasello, M., & Striano, T. (in press). On tools and toys: how children learn to act on and pretend with novel objects. Developmental Science.
11. Rochat, P., & Callaghan, T. (in press). What drives symbolic development? The case of pictorial comprehension and production. In L. Namy (Ed.), The development of symbolic use and comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Rostand, J. (1962). The substance of man (I. Brandeis, trans.). New York: Doubleday.
13. Smith, L.B. (2003). Learning to recognize objects. Psychological Science, 14, 244-250.
14. Smith, L.B., Jones, S.S., Landau, B., Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Samuelson, L. (2002). Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychological Science, 13, 13-19.
15. Striano, T., Tomasello, M., & Rochat, P. (2001). Social and object support for early symbolic play. Developmental Science, 4, 442-455.
16. Troseth, G.L., & DeLoache, J.S. (1998). The medium can obscure the message: young children's understanding of video. Child Development, 69, 950-965.
17. Younger, B.A., & Johnson, K.E. (2004). Do you see what I see? Infants' comprehension of symbolic connections between toy models and their real-world referents. In G.F. Michel, A. Tyler, I. Chmiel, S. Fatani, & L.A. Camras (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Biennial International Conference on Infant Studies (CD-ROM), Chicago. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.